Yahoo! Blimp Crash Lands in Ohio

My home page is Yahoo! There are reasons for this, some of them good, but all of them dull. I won’t bother you with them. I simply want to notice that the recent college graduates, college dropouts, high school students, and GED pursuers who select and headline the featured articles that run on such digital substitutes for newspapers are even more grossly bigoted than the New York Times.

Reporting on the most hotly contested “battleground state,” at the moment when it had become still more hotly contested, Yahoo ran this as a headline: “Mitt Romney Still Hasn't Given Up on Ohio.” If you clicked on the headline, you would see this at the beginning of the article: “Seeking middle-class and women voters, Romney intones ‘change’ mantra in Ohio."Can anyone imagine such a site featuring an article in which Obama intoned a “change” mantra?

The old journalistic rule was “dog bites man — not news; man bites dog — news.” The digital clones have it the other way around. No one expected Romney to give up on Ohio, but that’s the headline: he didn’t give up. Meanwhile, Yahoo! found no room for headlines about the shockingly daft response of the Obama administration to the massacre in Libya, or to anything else that might bring the administration into question. There was space, however, for a headline about a Democratic senator in quest of reelection: “Mother of Mo. Sen. McCaskill Dies at Age 84.” Yes, that is the news the nation must know.

There’s no limit to this crap. On the day when tropical storm Sandy struck the east coast, a Yahoo! headline read, “People Named Sandy More Likely to Give to Obama.”

About this Author

Stephen Cox is editor of Liberty, and a professor of literature at the University of California San Diego. His recent books include The Big House: Image and Reality of the American Prison and American Christianity: The Continuing Revolution.

Are Objectivists Also Libertarians?

The second Atlas Shrugged movie has now come out. Should this be viewed as a cause for celebration within the libertarian movement? Well, to know that we must first answer whether Objectivists are also libertarians. Is Objectivism a part of libertarianism?

Many people who claim to be Objectivists vehemently say No, it is not. My first reaction, on hearing them say that, is to think, “This is preposterous!” But it is hard to “answer” the question, because there is so much political and intellectual baggage caught up in it. In order to say “Objectivism is a type of libertarianism” you would need to define the two terms, and definitions vary so much that most people won’t agree on any two you give. And naturally, one doesn’t want to start a fight.

But let me put on my Objectivist hat for a moment and say: “In the next part of this essay I am going to demonstrate that reason and reality say that Objectivism is, in fact, a form of libertarianism, and I will be presenting the objective, neutral honest Truth.”

Here goes.

1. If “libertarian” means “extreme and radical defender of capitalism,” and “Objectivist” means “a follower of Ayn Rand,” then because Rand was an extreme, radical defender of capitalism, all of her true followers must be this type of person also. So all Objectivists are libertarians.

2. If “libertarian” means “a believer in the idea that aggression should never be initiated and violence should be used only in self-defense,” and this thought can be seen at the heart of Rand’s politics (consider the Project X episode in Atlas Shrugged, for example), then she was a libertarian and those who accept her philosophy are libertarians.

3. If “libertarian” refers to a belief that property comes from natural rights and human nature, a belief that mirrors one of Rand’s core beliefs, then the same conclusion can be drawn: she was a libertarian and her followers are also libertarians. Rothbardian libertarianism and Objectivism are like brother and sister, and Rothbard’s anti-Rand play “Mozart Was a Red” was merely a case of brother being mean to sister.

4. If “libertarian” refers to a belief that property rights are practical, pragmatic, and utilitarian, in the tradition of Hayek and Friedman, then yes, on the surface one might say that this is different from Objectivism. But let’s look more closely. The utilitarians say that capitalism will produce wealth and make people happy. Objectivism holds that capitalism is the system for “life on this Earth.” Translation: capitalism will make people happy. Rand bases her ethics on what will work in practical reality, although she takes this practicality and dresses it in the language of strict, almost puritan “morality.” Utilitarians like to say that they will obey whatever idea works best, whether it be capitalist or socialist, but in practice Hayek and Friedman were some of the most passionately idealistic and principled of capitalism’s defenders. Libertarian utilitarians take practicality and mold it into a theoretically consistent ideology based on the idea that capitalism will make people happy. Even in this sense, Objectivism is a type of libertarianism, if interpreted correctly.

5. If “libertarian” refers not to specific ideas but to a historical political movement and that movement’s members, then how can anyone ignore the steady foot traffic from Rand’s novels to the libertarian movement, during at least the past 50 years? This is the reason why It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand was so popular among libertarians. I suspect that an accurate poll of movement libertarians would reveal that at least 25% to 30% are post-Randian Objectivists, which is probably just as many as are Rothbardians or Ron Paul fanatics.

The truth is that the “official” Objectivist movement is a subset of libertarianism that, unfortunately, seeks to exclude and cast out anyone who disagrees with it, in an effort to preserve its ideological purity, which revolves around the quasi-worship of Rand; and that the “unofficial” Objectivist movement is overtly libertarian. Another truth is that many, perhaps most, of the other subsets of the libertarian movement are also obsessed with ideological purity and seek to cast out nonconformers. Anarchists hate minarchists, and vice versa, and some followers of Rothbard and his vision of anarchy are as stubborn as any Randroid. A more detailed account is beyond the scope of this essay, but can be found in Brian Doherty’s history of libertarianism, Radicals for Capitalism.

But all these people, including the Objectivists, are libertarians, whether they like it or not. Any contrary belief is illogical, self-contradictory, and blatantly irrational — precisely the type of thinking Rand preached against, although she herself had a spotty and checkered history of applying her theory of strict rationality in her personal life.

Some Objectivists reason in this form:

Rand defined Objectivism.

Rand said that Objectivists are not libertarians.

Therefore Objectivists are not libertarians.

This sequence of assertions has a remarkable simplicity, of the kind that often appeals to the young. But, of course, the truly Randian thought would be: what matters is not what people believe or say, even about their own ideas; what matters is what exists in objective reality. I couldn’t agree more with this essential Objectivism. And I hope I have selected an appropriate way to provide an “unanswerable” question with an objective and obvious answer.

About this Author

Russell Hasan lives in Connecticut. He is a graduate of Vassar and graduated with Honors from the University of Connecticut School of Law. His passions include philosophy, libertarianism, computer programming, and the New York Yankees. His most recent books are the libertarian political treatise Golden Rule Libertarianism and the epistemological essay The Apple of Knowledge, available for Kindle, Nook, and iPad.

Distorting the Energy Market

The government is hurting our ability to develop new sources of energy; and both the Republicans and Democrats are to blame.

In the most general terms, Republicans support continued tax breaks and subsidies for the oil and gas industry, and Democrats support grants, subsidies, and tax breaks for such new forms of energy as wind and solar. Neither party has a good energy policy. Both are blocking the path of innovation.

To create a fossil fuel alternative we must find an energy source that is cheaper, easier, and better than fossil fuel. But when government is picking which alternatives are worth pursuing, in addition to funding traditional energy sources, our view of what energy sources may work out becomes clouded. As long as government provides subsidies and tax loopholes to oil and gas

companies, they will hold an advantage in the market. Not only does government intervention in this manner make fossil fuels a highly lucrative industry, thus attracting many bright businesspeople, engineers, and scientists, but it makes the introduction of alternatives more difficult, since potential new competitors find working in an unbalanced market nearly impossible. Even if there were an energy alternative that consumers would want, the alternative would not be able to seize enough market share to turn a profit, because the coalition of government and big oil cannot be challenged by a newcomer.

With few exceptions, people agree we need to move away from burning fossil fuels if we want to meet future energy needs with as little disturbance to existing ecosystems as possible or beyond what we might consider desirable. And because oil and gas receive government benefits, the conventional thinking goes, so too should alternative energy exploration, in order to “level the playing field.” But what the best alternative might be is still unclear. One reason why it is unclear is that government involvement clouds the picture.

Think of ethanol. For years, because of Iowa's importance in the presidential nomination process, ethanol was highly subsidized by the government. Now we discover that it was not a workable, standalone alternative to fossil fuels. Consider all the resources that were misallocated because of this pursuit. Private resources, such as time and expertise, were focused on making ethanol work — in order to procure government money. If there had been no government money in ethanol research, engineers and scientists in the energy industry would have had a greater incentive to look elsewhere for a good alternative. But when the government creates a market there is no need to look elsewhere. The only problem is that the government lacks anything like a good record as a venture capitalist.

If it is true that necessity is the mother of invention, then the government is stripping us of that necessity. What is necessary for every company to operate is money, and if it doesn’t have a strong need for money, because government is supplying all it needs and then some, its incentive for invention is stripped away. If we want to find the best energy source, both long-term and short-term, the government needs to stop trying to control which sources come to market, or stay in the market.The government needs to divest itself of all financial interests in the energy industry.

About this Author

Kyle Scott, Ph.D., teaches political science at the University of Houston and is an elected member of the Board of Trustees for the Lone Star College System. Kyle's most recent book is Federalist Papers: A Reader's Guide. His commentary on current events has appeared in Forbes, Reuters.com, the Christian Science Monitor, Foxnews.com, the Huffington Post, and dozens of local outlets. He can be contacted at kyle.a.scott@hotmail.com.

Persuasive Definitions

Charles L. Stevenson coined the term "persuasive definitions" (Ethics and Language, 1944). It means: to apply words with favorable or unfavorable connotations to things or actions in such a way as to substitute for actual argument. Examples abound in political discourse nowadays.

I'll focus on just one: "invest." Politicians repeatedly tell us Americans to "invest" in our children, education, job retraining, medical and other research, defense, infrastructure, a healthy environment, clean energy, energy independence, transportation, progress, the future — whatever. Here "invest in" means "have the government spend more money on." More fully, it means "have the government spend more money on such things — money raised by taxes and by increasing the national debt."

Only 14 Percent?

Each time Barack Obama and his supporters sniff disdainfully at the 14% of his income that Mitt Romney paid in taxes, I want to shout at them to acknowledge the obvious: Romney does not have earned income.

In the private sector, companies expect their employees to come to work every day. Romney isn’t gainfully employed, because he has spent the past two years campaigning for office. Of course, Barack Obama has spent the past three years campaigning. He has missed important security briefings and delegated most of his duties to others. He does very little actual work and campaigns on the taxpayers’ dime. If you or I tried that, we would have to use up all our vacation days and then take time off without pay — assuming that our employers would be willing to keep us on the books (and the benefits) while we are off job hunting.

Romney paid a higher tax rate when he was working and earning an income. He pays plenty now on his investment income (the principal of which was already taxed at earned-income rates). More important to me than his 14% tax rate is the fact that he has chosen to give away nearly 30% of his income to charities and causes he believes in. He has created jobs throughout his career, and he has given failing companies a second chance. He is, in fact, a great example of how the private sector should function.

About this Author

Jo Ann Skousen is the founding director of the Anthem Libertarian Film Festival and a co-producer of FreedomFest, where 2,500 attendees and 200 speakers gather each year to discuss new ideas in science and technology, history and politics, health and well-being, art andliterature, economics and finance. This year’s FreedomFest is in Las Vegas on July 8–11, and its theme is Discover the New American Dream.

The Law School Biz

One of the necessary requirements for fundamental reform of a dysfunctional institution is self-reflection among the individuals within that institution. It is now quite obvious to knowledgeable spectators that the American system of higher education is desperately in need of fundamental reform. But this realization has yet to sink into the heads of most of the key players in that institution, the faculty and the administrators. This, I think, is mainly because they are not yet generally self-reflective.

One of the main impediments to self-reflection in the academic world is the tendency among its inhabitants to view higher education — indeed, all education — not as a business but as a kind of quasi-religious institution. Under this view, the key players (especially the faculty) are not agents delivering a service and subject to the same motivations as agents in any other business (chief among which is self-interest), but are instead disinterested and selfless individuals educating young minds as a noble calling.

That is why it is always useful to report data that demonstrate that in fact college is a business like any other, and the agents in it (the faculty, staff, and administrators) as well as the customers — the students — behave as agents and customers do in other businesses, i.e., as rational maximizers of their personal preferences. Recent data on the changing reality of law schools are very illustrative in this regard

Consider first the data on the market for law school graduates, as reported by Deborah Jones Merritt. If you look at the percentage of recent law school grads who land a full-time job requiring bar admission (as opposed to those who get any sort of full-time job, say, as a waiter or bus driver), you see a declining market. In 2001, only 75.9% found such jobs within the nine months after they graduated. In 2002, the figure dropped to 75.3%. In 2003, it was 73.7%; in 2004, it was 73.1%. In 2005, it ticked back up to 74.2%, in 2006, to 75.3%; in 2007, back down to 74.2%. But in 2008, it dropped to 71.2%; in 2009, to 65.2%; and in 2010 it slid to 62.3%. Now; in the 2011 figures, it has sunk to 59.8%. That is, over 40% of law school grads last year could not find full-time work for which their costly education was appropriate within nine months of graduation.

This means that during the past four years, nearly 74,000 law school grads could not find appropriate full-time work (again, requiring bar admission). This represents huge direct costs in terms of money spent to educate these students (and the wages they have forgone in law school) and in even greater opportunity costs. (Most people bright enough to get through law school could have gone instead into medical, business, or technical trades.)

Students have apparently heard about the declining chances of employment in the field. Law school applications are way down over the past two years, dropping by nearly 16% last year alone.

More interesting still, the biggest drop in applications is not among the least but among the most qualified applicants — at least as measured by the ubiquitous Law School Admissions Test (LSAT). Among those who scored at the highest level (175–180), applications were down by nearly 14%; at the next highest level (170–174), they were down a whopping 20%. But at the next to lowest level (140–144), applications were down only about 6%, and at the lowest level (140 and below), only about 4%.

This leads to an interesting conjecture, especially for those who can’t believe that law schools are just businesses like any other. If law schools were run as quasi-religious institutions, solely devoted to the public good, they would respond to the obvious oversupply of attorneys and the resultant decline in the quality of applicants by cutting back on the number of students admitted. But if they are like other businesses that face a declining customer base, they will do what they have to do to attract the same number of buyers.

Specifically, my guess is that at the top-tier schools (especially the top 14, admittance to which usually requires an LSAT score of at least 165), you will see not a reduction in the size of the entering class but simply a reduction in the quality of that class, reflected in lower mean LSAT scores for those students.

We’ll see.

About this Author

Gary Jason is an academic philosopher and a senior editor of Liberty. His recent books, Disturbing Thoughts: Unorthodox Writings on Timely Issues and Philosophic Thoughts: Essays on Logic and Philosophy are both available through Amazon.

Negligence of the Inept

Most people, including many Obama supporters, were stunned when the Obama administration blamed the Innocence of Muslims video for the 9/11 attack on our Benghazi consulate. With his recent swagger ("bin Laden is dead" and "Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat"), Mr. Obama seemed to be telling us that his conciliatory diplomacy was winning the day. Surely no one could have predicted that an obscure internet video, based on an obscurer film, would cause the murders of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans. But that was the administration’s explanation for the shattering of its Middle Eastern policy.

As for the film: all of us should have been stunned by the administration's betrayal of our First Amendment. Instead of defending free speech, Hillary Clinton denounced the film as "disgusting and reprehensible." Many liberals, of all people, condemned the producer, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, for the violence he allegedly incited — the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Nakoula is, by all accounts, a sleazy character. But if a third-rate, 14-minute trailer can thrust thousands of Muslims into a barbaric, murderous rage, then "Fire!" is precisely what should be shouted; the theater is already in flames.

Tiny Denmark defended the free speech of Jyllands-Posten, publisher of the Muhammad cartoons, doing so in the face of violent threats by Islamic extremists. America didn't have the spine to do; we apologized for the film, asked Google to remove it, and arrested the filmmaker.

A conflicted Google defended free speech in refusing to remove the video in the West, but caved to White House pressure in pulling it from several Arab-Muslim countries. A confused Nakoula was arrested in a disgraceful, groveling attempt to appease the Islamic world. When it comes to politically incorrect films, Muslims everywhere can now look to America for intolerence rivaling their own.

The foreign policy ineptitude of the Obama administration was exposed by its use of both the film and the arrest: the former as a pretense for causing the attack; the latter as a pretense for calming Muslims sympathetic to the attackers. White House and State Department officials were no doubt heartened by the spectacle of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department taking Nakoula from his home, perhaps hoping that it would quench post-Arab Spring hatred of Americans. But the true spectacle was ironic: the number of law enforcement officials hustling Nakoula off to jail in the US exceeded the number of security guards protecting the four Americans murdered in Libya.

If a third-rate, 14-minute film trailer can thrust thousands of Muslims into a barbaric, murderous rage, then "Fire!" is precisely what should be shouted; the theater is already in flames.

In America, where inflammatory artwork such as Andres Serrano’s "Piss Christ" is celebrated, the moral enlightenment of the politically correct usually comes back to bite them in the ass. So it was with Hillary Clinton, who once pasionately defended the free speech right of "The Holy Virgin Mary," a painting by Chris Ofili that depicts a black Madonna smeared with elephant dung and surrounded by collaged pornographic images of female genitalia. That passion is now a distant, hypocritical memory. In the Obama era of apology and appeasement, Mrs. Clinton is embarassed by free speech. On Pakistan's “Day of Love for the Prophet,” she ran an ad featuring President Obama blathering about our tradition of religious tolerance, and herself, pleading that our government had nothing to do with The Innocence of Muslims.

The day of Muslims loving their prophet ended with 23 people killed in Pakistan alone and revealed the deep folly of Obama's Middle East policies. Violent anti-American protests spread throughout the hyper-senstitve, irony-challenged Muslim world. People burned American flags, ransacked American businesses, attacked American embassies, etc. It's hard to imagine that a more "disgusting and reprehensible" display would have happened, if Mrs. Clinton had run a free speech ad instead.

To the consternation of Barack Obama, the sons of men who hated, but respected, George Bush, have become men who both hate and disrespect him. Subsequent to the Benghazi attack, "Obama, Obama, We Are All Osama" became the chant of the new liberal Arab youth. To many, perhaps millions, of them, Obama's achievement is an abomination. He murdered bin Laden, the spiritual champion who lives in their hearts — hearts that will be inconsolably inflamed upon the release of Zero Dark Thirty, a movie celebrating the killing of their hero. That will be the day when Obama's "bin Laden is dead" mantra will come back to bite him in the ass.

And it is Obama's movie. According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-4-to-5-inch-stack-of-overlooked-cia-records-detailing-meetings-with-bin-laden-filmmakers/, the White House worked closely with director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal to incorporate administration talking points and play up the president's role as the gutsy decision maker. To the dismay of Mrs. Clinton, our government is not innocent in the case of Zero Dark Thirty.

What, then, will the Obama administration do to prevent the rampant violence that this film will certainly incite? Pressure Sony to stop its distribution? Perp-walk Bigelow and Boal to jail? These steps may be unnecessary, if the administration succeeds in shifting blame to the intelligence community. Finally admitting that the Benghazi massacre was a terrorist attack, administration officials now tell us that they were unaware of terrorist threats converging on the consulate with the anniversary of 9/11. Had they known, measures would have been taken to protect the Americans stranded in Benghazi.

But, dashing hopes for an Obama Oscar (to go with his Nobel Peace Prize), they did know. There were numerous intelligence and DoD reports warning of the intense al Qaeda buildup in Libya during the six months prior to the Benghazi attack. According to reports such as “Al Qaeda in Libya: A Profile” (released in August), al Qaeda terrorists were probably bumping into each other in Benghazi. Ansar al Sharia held a June demonstration at Liberation Square; 15 militias showed up. Recent news reports reveal that, contrary to its repeated claims of ignorance, the administration was well aware of 13 threats or attacks on western diplomats and officials in Libya during the period. This is where president Obama's "Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat" mantra comes back to bite him, viciously.

Not only was the Obama administration cognizant of the emerging al Qaeda threat, it was aware of repeated requests from Benghazi for additional security — requests that were denied. Moreover, as al Qaeda forces were advancing, US forces were being withdrawn. According to CBS News, the State Department removed three Mobile Security Deployment teams and a 16-member Site Security Team between February and August. In the sobering aftermath of such blunders, a stern Obama warned of the consequences to countries that fail to protect Americans: we will send the FBI three weeks later, after reporters have left, examine the crime scene for an hour, and write a nasty report condemning the murders (after the election).

Not only was the Obama administration cognizant of the emerging al Qaeda threat, it was aware of repeated requests from Benghazi for additional security — requests that were denied.

Audaciously taking credit for the death of bin Laden, Obama purposefully evades responsibility for the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and his three colleagues. It is a shameless coverup for monumental ineptitude. He conceals his failed conciliatory policies, his misreading of the Arab Awakening, and his lack of interest in actionable intelligence information. Calls to seek justice and form yet another investigatory panel ("We're still doing an investigation," said President Obama, yukking it up on “The View” while FBI agents fretted in Tripoli) merely hide the negligence that left four Americans stranded in a pathetically unprotected facility to die valiantly and alone, murdered by a horde of terrorist cowards. Negligence, and ineptitude — the ineptitude that has transformed America's "Don't Tread on Me" into Obama’s "Grin and Bear It."

quot;bin Laden is dead

About this AuthorSteve Murphy is a retired missile defense systems engineer and software developer living on top of Green Mountain in Huntsville AL, where he does a little consulting, plays the stock market and writes — mostly about economics, science, and American life. He can be contacted at sfm@hiwaay.net.

Dear Leader

I’m sure that the president's choice last night to rein in his brilliance and heart and allow Romney to “win” the debate is part of a brilliant strategy. I’ve understood Barack Obama’s brilliance from the very beginning — I bought a copy of The Audacity of Hope and Change in, like, early 2008. Before everybody else did. Some regular people are intimidated by his brilliance. And his heart. But I’m not. I understand it.

I mean, some people are saying that the president will have to lower himself to that liar Romey’s level and lie to get votes. But Barack Obama can’t lie. I mean, he just can’t — he’s too brilliant and has too much heart. Some people don’t understand that, but I do. I have an original Obama sticker on my Prius — not the Obama/Biden sticker and not a 2012 sticker, but the original “O” sticker that only charter supporters could get.

I know that some people are saying that Obama should have “hit back” at Romney in the debate. But those people aren’t true Obama supporters. They’re just pretenders who only care about the horse-race qualities of an election and don’t understand Obama’s brilliance. And heart. The man has so much heart that he can’t help being so much bigger than people like Romney. Romney and his mean-spirited dismissal of the 47%. What an elitist snob. I can’t believe he got the Republican nomination!

I realize that, at times like last night’s debate, Obama’s brilliance is a cross he has to bear. And his heart. I know that feeling — it’s something people like me and the president have in common. I mean, I’m not going to say I’m as brilliant as Barack Obama. Or have as much heart. But we do share a few similar traits.

I was on Facebook this morning, reading what Michelle had to say about how rude Romney was last night, just ignoring the rules and talking right over that weak moderator. I’m part of Michelle’s true friends circle on FB — not the one that’s open to the public, but the one where you had to have been a charter supporter to get invited. So I get to read what she really thinks. Michelle is so brilliant. Anyway, while I was reading what Michelle really thinks about the debate, I realized something: politics is beneath Barack Obama. His heart is so much bigger. And he’s so much more brilliant.

I understand something now that regular people probably don’t. You have to have been with Barack and Michelle from the beginning to get this — I mean, Michelle gets it. And Sasha and Malia probably get it, but regular people don’t understand. Barack needs a platform worthy of his brilliance and heart. If he chooses not to demean himself and pander in a vulgar popularity contest, it will prove that his brilliance and heart are just too brilliant for the common American voter.

I’ve kind of known that all along, before all the regular people started figuring it out.

Round One: Romney

The first of three presidential debates between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney was held last night. New Jersey governor Chris Christie had boldly predicted that the event would be a “game-changer” for the Romney campaign. As it turned out, Christie was probably overstating things. Nevertheless, Romney’s energetic performance put new life into his quest for the White House, while Obama let slip an opportunity to finish off his Republican opponent.

The immediate post-debate analysis seemed to stress style over substance. Romney, pundits agreed, looked happy to be on the University of Denver stage, while Obama appeared to endure the 90-minute debate. Romney smiled; Obama scowled. Romney was aggressive and weighed in on issues with gusto; Obama was rather detached and professorial. Romney ran roughshod over moderator Jim Lehrer; Obama was more diffident in dealing with the aging and rather incompetent PBS journalist. The performances left MSNBC’s coterie of lefties in a state of near-apoplexy, while at Fox there was smug satisfaction.

This observer thought Romney started and finished strong, while Obama scored some important points in between. The debate was to be divided into six segments. The first three concerned aspects of the economy (jobs, the deficit and debt, and entitlements) followed by healthcare, the role of government, and “governing.” The first segment ran over time — no surprise, given the flabby moderator — and time pressure caused the segment on governing to be dropped. Romney scored substantive points on Obama’s persistent deficits, his energy policy (billions thrown away on green energy boondoggles, lack of oil and gas drilling on federal land), and feeble job growth. Indeed, during the first half of the debate he dominated the stage, despite the fact that some of his arguments and assertions didn’t quite pass the smell test.

About halfway through the debate the subject of Medicare was introduced, and here Obama fought back by eviscerating the Paul Ryan voucher scheme. The president helped himself with seniors, a critical constituency that had already begun moving his way after the selection of Ryan to be Romney’s running mate. Obama also touched a populist chord with some well-chosen words regarding the regulation of Wall Street, and without having to explain or justify the absurd aspects of his main regulatory tool, the Dodd-Frank legislation passed in 2010.

That said, Obama muffed the chance to finish off Romney and end the race a month before Election Day. Obama never mentioned the notorious 47% recording, giving Romney free rein to express (which he did over and over) his love and compassion for everyone in America. He failed to mention the Republican-led House of Representatives, despite the fact that Congress is the most unpopular institution in America. He said nothing about Romney’s tax returns or overseas accounts — juicy populist targets that could have energized not just the Democratic base, but many white working-class voters who lean Republican. For Obama, this debate was definitely an opportunity lost.

Romney, down for the count coming in, picked himself up off the mat and is now back in the fight. For true conservatives — not to mention libertarians — his performance had to grate, for he tried (as usual) to be all things to all people. He was once again short on details about his major policy proposals. And he refused (understandably, since it would be political suicide) to make clear the stark choices America faces, particularly on the fiscal front. His success last night was not, with apologies to Governor Christie, a game-changer, but it does give him hope and the opportunity to make the race competitive again.

Was Obama rusty, as some pundits postulated last night, or did he hold back for fear of appearing to be an “angry black man,” something that he and his handlers have been concerned about since he first declared his candidacy for the highest office? We’ll probably never know, but the betting here is that he will be much more aggressive in the remaining two debates. That and the tendency of Mitt Romney to place his own foot firmly in his mouth will, this observer believes, lead to a second term for Barack Obama.

Europe’s Next Tax Horizon

If they weren’t so snide, smug, and supercilious, you would almost be tempted to pity the wretched Europeans — you know, the culturally superior members of the human race. I mean, they are more or less bankrupt, what with their “generous” and “compassionate” welfare states now running out of tax money. And, brother, do they have taxes — in the matter of taxation, they are the wet dream of Obama-worshipers. They have confiscatory income taxes (in France, now set at 75% for the highest bracket), massive property and gas taxes, and national sales taxes (aka VAT taxes) in the mid-20% range that is standard in the rapidly declining continent.

The idea of cutting the sickeningly bloated welfare state is unpopular in these benighted regimes, and normal tax sources are now taxed to the max. So the challenge to the welfare statists is to come up with new tax sources.

The Germans — ever keen and crafty — may have solved the problem. It was recently reported that the more left-wing German political parties (the Social Democrats and the Greens) are now suggesting a wealth tax of 1% on total assets of 2 million Euros or more. So even if you are retired or otherwise unemployed, but along the way you and your spouse have managed to buy a nice home, jewelry, perhaps a portfolio of stocks and bonds, maybe some artwork — the total value will be assessed (at no doubt inflated valuations — remember, the entity doing the assessment will be precisely the one that pockets the money), and looted.

Anyway, that’s where it will start. Remember, the original American federal income tax started very low (top rate of 7%). So did the VAT tax in all the European countries cursed with it. What happens is that the burst of new revenue always results in not just the expansion of existing social welfare programs but the creation of whole new ones, which — like bay cockroaches — will only grow and multiply further.

Indeed, one German “thinktank” has called for a one-time tax of 10% on all wealth over 250,000 Euros. This would likely bring in about the equivalent of 9% of GDP, and an eager exit of capital from the country.

But again, who believes it would be done just once? The same egalitarian arguments for doing it once will be used to justify doing it (say) every other year, or even every year, or even every 6 months, or even . . .

About this Author

Gary Jason is an academic philosopher and a senior editor of Liberty. His recent books, Disturbing Thoughts: Unorthodox Writings on Timely Issues and Philosophic Thoughts: Essays on Logic and Philosophy are both available through Amazon.